论作为私人实施方式的反垄断民事纠纷仲裁  

The Arbitration of Anti-Monopoly Civil Disputes as a Type of Private Enforcement

作　　者：吴佩乘 Wu Peicheng

机构地区：[1]上海交通大学凯原法学院 [2]澳大利亚新南威尔士大学法学院

出　　处：《北京仲裁》2020年第4期27-46,共20页Beijing Arbitration Quarterly

基　　金：国家留学基金管理委员会“国家建设高水平大学公派研究生项目”(项目号:201906230145);国家社科基金青年项目“大数据条件下反垄断法遇到的挑战与制度因应研究”(项目号:20CFX057)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：仲裁能否成为反垄断民事纠纷的解决方式在我国颇具争议,作为反垄断主要司法辖区的美国和欧盟相继在20世纪承认了反垄断纠纷的可仲裁性,实现了从抵触到支持反垄断仲裁的政策转变。反垄断民事纠纷从特征上符合我国仲裁法实践中的可仲裁性标准,但只有部分垄断协议和滥用市场支配地位纠纷以及和垄断相关的合同纠纷可以适用仲裁程序。法院可对仲裁裁决是否限制竞争进行司法审查,竞争执法机构对反竞争行为也可展开独立调查。“飞跃上诉”背景下,对于垄断纠纷可仲裁性的审查应由法院内仲裁司法审查部门处理,而基于公共政策标准审查的案件向最高人民法院知识产权法庭报核更为适宜。Whether arbitration can be a solution to anti-monopoly civil disputes is quite controversial in China.The United States and the European Union,the main jurisdictions of antitrust,have acknowledged the arbitrability of antitrust disputes in the last century,realizing the policy transition from opposing to supporting antitrust arbitration.Anti-monopoly civil disputes are characteristically in line with the arbitrability standards in the practice of China’s arbitration law,but only disputes of certain monopoly agreements and disputes over abuse of market dominance,as well as contract disputes related to monopoly can be subject to arbitration procedures.The court may conduct judicial review on whether arbitral awards restrict competition,and competition enforcement agencies may conduct independent investigations of anticompetitive behaviors.In the context of the so-called“Leap Appeal”,the review of the arbitrability of monopoly disputes should be handled by the arbitration judicial review department in the court,and cases reviewed based on public policy standards are more appropriate to report to the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court.

关 键 词：反垄断法 仲裁 可仲裁性 私人实施 

分 类 号：D92[政治法律—法学]